Jump to content

Tri-X (New) versus Tri-X (Old).


keith_tapscott

Recommended Posts

Hello there,

I read an article a while ago, about a photographer who was bemoaning the

passing of Tri-X (TX)when comparing it to the latest version (400TX).

The photographer complained that he couldn`t get the same rich depth of tones

and contrast from the new stuff that he could get from the old version.

I would be interested in reading the opinions of any photographers who have

used Tri-X regularly as their standard B&W film stock over many years and even

decades, of their experiences with the old versus the new.

Are the differences a myth or a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I process the latest Tri-X in Microdol-X diluted 1:3, at a temperature of 75 degrees, for 18 minutes and get gorgeous detail, sharpness, and tonality. Therefore, the photographere who you state bemoaned it was merely stating a personal opinion that I cannot support based on real world circumstances.

 

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too, I'm geting results that I don't like with the new tri-x, looks more like tmax films and

especialy tmax 400(that I hate!) :

-less contrast in the shadows, flat look, thin...

Why?

Why did they do it?

Why did'nt they just kept it like it was and reserve the upgrades to tmax(it sure nedded!)

now i'm thinking of changing to HP5...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about this for some time. While I like the grain of new Tri-X, I've had to come up with new dev times for the new version and my negs seem to come out a bit on the thin side. I have no old Tri-X to compare this with, and my observations are just that. I have no scientific data to back anything up with, but what's left of my APX 400 seems to give me a richer, denser neg with the same dev. It doesn't seem to be the same Tri-X I used in school in the 70's. Could the emulsion be too thin? I know that "silver rich" is a myth, but could the new Tri-X be silver poor? Is there too much t-grain technology in the new Tri-X that the tonality has suffered. Questions which I have no answers for. IMHO, Tri-X is still a good film, just not a great one anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using Tri-X as my favorite film for decades. For me the transition from 'old' to 'new' has been seamless. Whether differences are a myth or a fact comes down to each photographer's skills and preferences. 99.9% of users didn't bother to test 'old' vs.'new' and as for the other .01%, half of them won't have done the test accurately. So it's down to opinion. Since the 'old' film is gone, if you want to find out what Tri-X looks like these days, shoot some and see. Don't underexpose, don't overdevelop and you'll have some great negs. And if fine grain is a priority, use a slower film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orb, Jim and Mark, thanks for replying. I`m not a Tri-X user, but I was curious to find out what the particular photographer was complaining about. Orb considers the new film a bit more like TMY while Mark says the transition is seamless and has used Tri-X for decades. Do you not notice any significant difference between the old and the new Mark? It would be interesting to read what the long term Tri-X user and connoisseur has to say whether the new film is better or worse.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Keith.

 

Since we're essentially, as Mark wrote, discussing "opinions", it's important to consider the source, and as such, I would throw Orb's out due to his characterisation of TMY compared to 400TX. I can say with certainty that the new TX is a K-grain film, and not a T-grain film. My testing shows that the characteristic curve shape is identical between TX and 400TX, which means that given appropriate exposure and development, the curves will superimpose. Curves don't tell us anything about grain or sharpness, but comparing 20X enlargement sections of the two versions shows a barely discernible advantage to 400TX in grain, which means a corresponding reduction in apparent sharpness. In short, there's nothing TX could do that 400TX can't.

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I agree with DR5. The only change has been an upgrade to the new equipment (which helps me belive Tri-X & Plus-X will be around for at least another 25 years), which inherently led to a change (improvement) of the emulsion.

 

The biggest (most drastic) change I've seen is slightly finer grain, which isn't a bad thing at all. I haven't had to change the way I shoot it or process it. Perhaps all these others are just being too anal about it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the majority opinion here - that there's very little change between 400TX and the earlier TXT. There might be a slight reduction in grain with 400TX but nothing dramatic.

 

400TX does exhibit a slightly different film base color at tends towards the same magenta as TMY. I've never found that minor color cast to impact printing - not even when using VC papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newer Tri-X has slightly finer grain. Otherwise, it is identical to the old stuff

sensitometrically. One thing that may be happening is that people who do not presoak their

film may be getting reduced development. Kodak's says the new film has a harder emulsion,

and that may be making the film a little slower to absorb the developer for those who do not

presoak. I always presoak for 5 minutes, and my times for the same CI were identical to the

old stuff. In my opinion, it is different only in the sense of being better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my new-old friend Keith,

 

I have used TriX since it inception in 1954 (I was 23 then). I have given up on the new TriX. This is not an opinion, with 3 different developers evaluated with first a class densitometer, developed to a GBar of .50 and a net density in Z5 of .70, it get film speeds of from 160 to 200.

 

This part IS opinion: I don't like the granularity, sharpness, or tonalities of it.

 

My formerly HATED TMY is now my favorite actual 400 speed film used in D76 full strength (replenished). My second choice is Fuji Neopan 400 when used in fine grain developers such as Acufine or UFG.

 

I like Delta 400 for certain things, it performs like original TX except that it is a bit more grainy, but can be used nicely for water bath, edge effect, sabattier, pre-exposure, and other special techniques.

 

My current all time favorite general peurpose film is the NEW Plus X Pan with full strength D76 or D76 1:1. It is grainless and sharp at 20X magnification. Acufine (full strength) works well, gains perhaps 1/2 stop in speed but is no better in sharpness or grain. In fact, the tonalities in D76 are better.

 

Lynn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn,

That is interesting. I use FX-37 at 1:5 for 6 min at 72 deg, and I get a very carefully measured EI of 500. I use calibrated densitometers and carefully exposed test strips (sans camera using the BTZS system) I shoot for a CI of 0.55. If anything, I find the grain to be too fine for my tastes. I dunno. As always, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

the first roll of new tri-x i tried also turned out thin when i dev'd it the same way as with the old tri-x. i agree with one of the previous posts about the need to pre-soak - it has made a difference. i'm using ddx to dev at the recommended EI 400 time + 10% more (as it usually seems with ilford's times, to me). not quite as thick as old tri-x, but it's really quite a nice neg and i've got no complaints right now.

 

warm regards,

sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...